Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 04:14:42
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
NinthMusketeer wrote:I would agree with you if the GHB balance were better, but the thing is the difference between lists can mean that there isn't even a real 'game' in the first place. Losing a game with a weak list is one thing, but bringing an average list and doing little more than picking up your models as they die is quite another. And the variation in GHB cost-effectiviness means such a thing can easily happen by chance, it doesn't even need a matchup of a bad player vs a good one, just two players who have different ideas of where the competitiveness scale is.
The problem is the internet has greatly affected how list building is done. If you assume that all lists fall along a Bell Curve, a majority of them will comfortably fit towards the middle of the hump. So there should be a huge number of "average" lists with relatively few terrible or amazing lists. However, with the ability to share amazing lists on the internet, that top 10% of lists (which have a power imbalance that can win the majority of games) is now available to 100% of the players. The end result is a meta where only the top 10% of lists can play against the top 10% of lists, and the other 90% of terrible, average, and above average lists are completely overpowered by the fact that you are extremely likely to play against a top tier list against a random opponent during a random pick up game on Saturday afternoon. Of course, when it is really easy to spot overpowered units, those top 10% of lists become easy to spot.
The solution to this is to play different scenarios and use different battlefields. A unit which can ignore difficult terrain is worthless on an empty field, overpowered on a cluttered one. A slow moving defensive unit may not do much in a rush to the center mosh pit, but is invaluable at defending objectives. It also becomes much more difficult to figure out the top 10% of lists when the circumstances are individualized and unpredictable. I believe it is one of the reasons why Infinity has a decent point system. Every Infinity table is different.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 05:23:40
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Flashy Flashgitz
|
Kriswall wrote:
Any given system where you can pick your list will have weak lists and strong lists. I play Star Wars Armada. I can take 400 points of capital ships with no upgrades and no squadron support. It's a weak list and I'm likely to lose every game I play. This doesn't mean the points system in Armada is bad or that I need to negotiate with my opponent to modify the points...
I follow you man.
it just means I made a bad list. I need to get better at the game and better at choosing my army.
That's a very narrow conclusion. At the very least you have left out the part telling how this is valid for a competitive meta, while there exists other ways to play. Scenario driven games and competitive games both require the right kind of opponents.
|
With love from Denmark
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 06:12:53
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
Sqorgar wrote: NinthMusketeer wrote:I would agree with you if the GHB balance were better, but the thing is the difference between lists can mean that there isn't even a real 'game' in the first place. Losing a game with a weak list is one thing, but bringing an average list and doing little more than picking up your models as they die is quite another. And the variation in GHB cost-effectiviness means such a thing can easily happen by chance, it doesn't even need a matchup of a bad player vs a good one, just two players who have different ideas of where the competitiveness scale is.
The problem is the internet has greatly affected how list building is done. If you assume that all lists fall along a Bell Curve, a majority of them will comfortably fit towards the middle of the hump. So there should be a huge number of "average" lists with relatively few terrible or amazing lists. However, with the ability to share amazing lists on the internet, that top 10% of lists (which have a power imbalance that can win the majority of games) is now available to 100% of the players. The end result is a meta where only the top 10% of lists can play against the top 10% of lists, and the other 90% of terrible, average, and above average lists are completely overpowered by the fact that you are extremely likely to play against a top tier list against a random opponent during a random pick up game on Saturday afternoon. Of course, when it is really easy to spot overpowered units, those top 10% of lists become easy to spot.
The solution to this is to play different scenarios and use different battlefields. A unit which can ignore difficult terrain is worthless on an empty field, overpowered on a cluttered one. A slow moving defensive unit may not do much in a rush to the center mosh pit, but is invaluable at defending objectives. It also becomes much more difficult to figure out the top 10% of lists when the circumstances are individualized and unpredictable. I believe it is one of the reasons why Infinity has a decent point system. Every Infinity table is different.
Scenarios help of course, but part of the solution lies in making that bell curve more narrow. If a top list is only a little bit better than an above average list, a player using the latter can still do well provided they are more skilled than the opposition. What I am complaining about is that a top list will utterly decimate even an above-average list because the bell curve is so wide. Ideally the metaphorical curve would be a negative skew where the average, above average, and top lists are all relatively close together. What we have more resembles a cow pie.
|
Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page
I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 08:09:28
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Kriswall wrote:
Warhammer has historically worked that way. Warhammer 40k currently works that way.
No. Historically, gamers have treated warhammer as a pick up game, regardless of its suitability for this. Often, because gw was 'the only game in town'. Currently, gamers still treat 40k as a pick up game, despite its obvious unsuitability for this.
There is a big difference.
Kriswall wrote:
Also, out of curiosity, how do you define gaming community? For me, it's literally a group that goes down to the shop to play random games. I might become friends with some of these people and develop a relationship OUTSIDE the context of the gaming group, but that's separate from the gaming community.
People who play wargames are the gaming community. The people at your local store are your local gaming community. They are not separate from each other. Making friends with people in your community is not a separate act from gaming with them.
Vaktathi wrote:Apparently people who don't necessarily want to play with people outside of a club or store or have everyone's personal contact information are lazy and bad gamers and deserve bad rulesets.
People who don't bother putting effort into their gsmes or their communities are lazy gamers. Especially when there are issues and they insist on doing nothing for themselves In Terms of personal responsibility and personal empowerment. You get out what you put in. No effort, no reward. No different to sports.
Vaktathi wrote:
Seriously people, not everyone has tight gaming pals for various reasons.
And therein lies so much of the problems .
Vaktathi wrote:Some people can really only ever get in a pickup game once in a blue moon,
Sounds like me. And I still got contact details or Facebook places to post. If all you get is one gsme in a blue moon(I'm assuming because of life commitments etc), then it becomes a far more valuable commodity, and surely one would put a lot of effort into something you like that you don't get to do very often.
Vaktathi wrote:some people just aren't that tight with the club people,
Therein lies the problem. This is a niche community. Small numbers on the whole. Surely it makes sense to not be strangers?
For what it's worth, You don't necessarily need to be 'tight'. You don't need to be bffs. But you need to know them. But trading details. Having some chat, and knowing likes and dislikes etc. And build up from there. Heck, go for beers after wargames. I've done this in multiple countries as a complete stranger to the local community.
Vaktathi wrote: and some people just want a quick and easy setup method to play games with whoever without spending time negotiating everything.
Which is fine. I like pick up games too. WMH is awesome. But if you be wanting a pick up gsme, then play a pick up gsme. Gw games are not those games. Wishing it were so will not change anything. Dealing with the reality on the ground is what counts.
Vaktathi wrote:That doesn't make them lazy or bad or anything else.
True. But when there are issues, when they do nothing about their issues, when they don't want to put any effort in and expect the perfect game. When they do nothing for, or to improve their community, and feel like they owe them nothing -that makes them lazy.
Vaktathi wrote:This is a past-time hobby, not a second job, not a sports team, or anything else,
So that excuses no effort? Sports teams are not past time hobbies either? And There's no social aspect to them at all? Or team/community building? Are you for real? Really, I guess all my marathons, half marathons and all those miles I've run have been me doing it wrong all this time! I should have been putting in absolutely no effort at all all this time for the hobbies I love!
Lol but no. This is a very laborious and time consuming hobby at the best of times. If you wanted a no-effort hobby, this is probably the last one on the lists, You buy models.you prep thrm. You paint them. Which can take hours in itself. You read lore. You can write lore. Games themselves take hours. It takes a long time to get things off the ground here. Everything you do requires a degree of effort.
You say it's not a second job and you are right - you are also completely missing the point. Hobbies, and past times take both times and effort in return for reward. And funnily enough, the older I get, the more I realise how sports teams and wargaming clubs operate on a lot of the same levels with w lot of the same thinking behind them. There is a lot of common ground.
All you are doing is excusing and trying to validate laziness.
Vaktathi wrote:and it's not unreasonable for them to want a quick and easy pickup style of play without having to jump through hoops with rules, make game dates, etc.
But then why aren't you playing a pick up game?
No, it's not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is how people want only this, and dismiss and refuse to try any other approaches and devalue any other approach, despite its value and worth, and despite (often) the relative ease of effort of the social shock absorber. Pick up games are fine. They can be great fun, and there is great value to them. But theirs is not the only path. Pick up gsmes all the time every where, and only pick up gsmes? Bloody hell, you'll burn out if that's all you do!
And 'games dates' -organising when to play next is an issue? Really? I'm free next Saturday. Four and a half words of effort.
Vaktathi wrote: That AoS has such a method now isn't because of bad people doing evil things to the game, it's because quite frankly most people just want to be able to pick up and go.
It's got very little to do with bad people doing bad things to the game- it's Also got to do with a lot of people never bothering opening their minds to new ways of playing. Along with a whole host of other reasons as to why aos' launch was such a bad thing, done in a really bad way.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/22 08:57:29
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 08:50:47
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard
UK
|
Got to love that people still insist it's the gamers fault instead of accepting AoS was not what the community asked for.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 12:08:04
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Clousseau
|
Its not the gamers fault. If you are a company after max profits, you have to cater to what the majority of the community wants:
power gaming competitive tournament games that require little effort to set up and that cater solely to pick up gaming. Is it lazy? Maybe yeah you could call it lazy technically. Its about putting the least amount of work in to get the most gains (show up and play with no negotiations required), but regardless if we want to label it lazy it is what it is. That is our culture and you're not going to change that culture - particularly when so many other games feed it and cater to it. GW expecting to change that failed. And failed hard.
The rest, the campaigns, the narrative, etc... those are not really what the majority of people seem to want - so use your resources wisely. This argument has existed since time immemorial.
There are people that wish and want narrative and campaigning and friendlier style of gaming to be more common and accepted but thats been a frustrating uphill battle since the internet gave way to internet netlisting and tournaments were pushed into the spotlight way back in 1999 or 2000.
You can be a frostgrave, in which case you are small and even a small success is a big thing but GW is a huge public traded company trying to max stock prices.
What is the community asking for? Largely - a game that caters to powergaming, listbuilding, min/max play, competitive play, and pick up gaming.
AOS on release didn't really cater to any of that (we can nit pick over players fielding 5 nagashes and that would be min/max play but the whole point of min/max is to cleverly break a structured set up (2000 pts) with things that make your list operate at more than 2000 pts. When you have no restrictions, you are essentially not breaking anything)
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/22 13:40:08
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 13:38:03
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
NinthMusketeer wrote:Scenarios help of course, but part of the solution lies in making that bell curve more narrow. If a top list is only a little bit better than an above average list, a player using the latter can still do well provided they are more skilled than the opposition. What I am complaining about is that a top list will utterly decimate even an above-average list because the bell curve is so wide. Ideally the metaphorical curve would be a negative skew where the average, above average, and top lists are all relatively close together. What we have more resembles a cow pie.
I'm not sure that is possible unless the units themselves were very similar in power. It is impossible to design a point system that universally values every model accurately in every situation, and with gamers liking to play only one scenario over and over again, you'll end up with that one scenario having grossly undervalued units - unless you do it like Warmachine did and only have one scenario and create points based on that scenario and only that scenario.
auticus wrote:The rest, the campaigns, the narrative, etc... those are not really what the majority of people seem to want - so use your resources wisely. This argument has existed since time immemorial.
That is a self fulfilling prophecy. Some products require more money and effort for smaller profit, so they don't make it, and because they don't make it, all the gamers that did want it leave, with only the gamers that didn't want it left as your customers. Then you only have customers who don't want it. There's crossover appeal between miniatures and pen and paper RPGs, so narrative experiences are totally possible and potentially profitable, but because you have to appease the gamers that are currently your fans (the gamers that don't want it, and complain when you release a single miniature for non-competitive play), it is even more difficult to move in that direction.
Competitive players like minmaxing so much, they minmax social interactions and THAT can't be healthy for the long term. And honestly, I REALLY like the narrative approach that AoS has been taking. From day one, there's been a storyline moving forward that ties into the units released, the scenarios you can play, and the books being written. GW isn't approaching AoS a tournament game, and thank goodness.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 13:42:35
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Clousseau
|
I agree that can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, but GW is in the business of maximizing profits.
If they were a smaller company then releasing supplements that hardly sold at all (historically, the campaigns, expansions, etc) wouldn't be that bad, but for a company the size of GW thats not worth it to them.
Now we have seen a giant chunk of the community flip off GW because there was no powergaming competitive play catered to them. So they brought the GHB out and you saw a giant chunk come back.
Here's the next question though... will GW continue to cater to the narrative approach when the numbers seem to favor the power gaming approach vastly more?
As a business if I was making the call solely based on the numbers I'd say no. But we will wait and see.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 14:23:29
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran
|
auticus wrote:
If they were a smaller company then releasing supplements that hardly sold at all (historically, the campaigns, expansions, etc) wouldn't be that bad, but for a company the size of GW thats not worth it to them.
Actually, speaking as a publisher, it is the other way around. A smaller company has to maximise profits on every product - a larger company has the leeway to do things 'just because'. We have done this ourselves, bringing out books (even whole lines) because we wanted to, even knowing they were unlikely to return much profit.
GW is slightly different in that it has a much wider range of shareholders, but it certainly has enough margin to experiment.
auticus wrote:Here's the next question though... will GW continue to cater to the narrative approach when the numbers seem to favor the power gaming approach vastly more?
That is indeed the Question
My advice? Email White Dwarf (team@whitedwarf.co. uk). Email the web site blog (webstoreblog@gwplc.com). Post on their Facebook pages. Let them know about the narrative games you are playing, make them aware that there is a decent horde of us out there.
This kind of approach _does_ work. After all, if they hear nothing, how will they know what kind of games we are playing?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 14:43:35
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Clousseau
|
You're right Matt my bad. What I meant more was like Joe is doing with Frostgrave... if he doesn't make a ton of money it doesn't matter. Frostgrave is a great game but is very niche and does not have many players overall because it is not a tournament powergame. It doesn't attract what is apparently the majority element. Joe is fine with that though or appears to be, because he has no stockholders to appease and appears to basically be a one man shop.
I don't know that there is a horde of us out there to be honest. I know when I hear stories about metas rejecting anything but pick up games and official points, I can only nod because my own is that way as well.
Narrative games are something you might get to do if you have a close knit group of like minded friends, but I notice even in RPGs people want to be very competitive and min/max.
I don't have an answer either though. I'm just reflecting.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 14:58:18
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
|
What I notice more, and this goes far beyond just wargaming, society as a whole seems to want more groupthink and "conform to the herd". If one person disagrees with something, and everyone else agrees, the one who disagrees is often forced or otherwise persuaded to change viewpoints to match the others. This can be something as relevant as a narrative gamer having to forgo narrative play and min-max and netlist in order to even get a game, or go deeper to someone at a job being forced to do things in an ineffective way because everyone else does it that way, and they only see someone who is voicing dissent, not someone with equally valid ideas. I think that specific topic can very quickly devolve into a psychological discussion, but on the wargame front I definitely see the mentality that if you don't play the way everyone else wants, you either change your viewpoint, or you don't get games. Someone who built an army that didn't rely on points but is equally or more thematic than one built with the General's Handbook can be forced to kowtow to the "points only" crowd just because they get fed up with going down to the store every week with their fluffy and thematic and interesting army, only to find that nobody wants to play them because it's not using points, as if it can't be built well simply because it wasn't built with points, even if they could look at the list and see nothing min-maxed. Several weeks of wasted time and effort with nothing to show for it will, in my experience, quickly get someone to throw up their hands in frustration and "give in", all the while having a miserable time of it because they can't play in the way they prefer simply because they have no like-minded, or even open-minded in some cases, people willing to expand their viewpoints rather than expect everyone else to conform. That is far too often what happens. An exact quote from someone at my local GW during a casual talk of AOS: "I'd never play without points". No reasoning why, just absolute law that the game is unplayable without points, even though all it would take is a very simple discussion of what to bring and the general expectation to not be a douchebag and try to game the system. Yet it seems many players are incapable of that and are so afraid that playing without points means spamming the best units or taking all monsters or all heroes or something equally far-fetched. I find that rigidly adhering to points tends to limit the narrative aspects of the game; I fondly recall in 5th edition Fantasy when I started (the edition that had Bretonnians and Lizardmen in the box) there were a couple of scenarios that were uneven points, intended to be part of campaign games, such as Last Stand where the defender had half as many points as the attacker. People today would seemingly balk at that sort of game, because oh my god it's uneven points, how on earth can it be balanced?
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/09/22 15:07:51
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 15:24:42
Subject: Re:Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Beautiful and Deadly Keeper of Secrets
|
Honestly I'm just amused at the people saying that others should try something the way they enjoy playing it.. While belittling and calling those who don't play it THEIR way fearful, lazy, or other such negative terms simply because they don't like playing that way.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 15:34:45
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
WayneTheGame wrote:What I notice more, and this goes far beyond just wargaming, society as a whole seems to want more groupthink and "conform to the herd". If one person disagrees with something, and everyone else agrees, the one who disagrees is often forced or otherwise persuaded to change viewpoints to match the others. This can be something as relevant as a narrative gamer having to forgo narrative play and min-max and netlist in order to even get a game, or go deeper to someone at a job being forced to do things in an ineffective way because everyone else does it that way, and they only see someone who is voicing dissent, not someone with equally valid ideas.
Past couple years, using social media as a peer pressure platform to oppress dissenting ideas has become REALLY popular. Even an off color joke between friends can result in angry mobs calling for you to be fired. That attitude has always existed, but I think the ability to block and unfriend those you disagree with have lead to echo chambers so enclosed that you never have to encounter a disagreement - so when you do, it is so unfamiliar that even the idea of compromise or agreeing to disagree becomes a foreign concept.
Heck, half the reason I started playing miniature games a year ago is because video games were basically ruined by this attitude. It got old being called a pedophile because I liked Japanese games or a misogynist because I thought Duke Nukem 3D was a pretty good game. I see some of that attitude in miniatures (why the Malifaux figures gotta be so sexy? And boob armor on the Sisters of Battle? I do declare! It gives me the vapors!) but generally speaking, people are still having those discussions with both sides present and debating, rather than just expecting misogyny to be a foregone conclusion and banning everyone who disagrees. And man, I appreciate the miniature gaming community so much for that.
I think that specific topic can very quickly devolve into a psychological discussion, but on the wargame front I definitely see the mentality that if you don't play the way everyone else wants, you either change your viewpoint, or you don't get games. Someone who built an army that didn't rely on points but is equally or more thematic than one built with the General's Handbook can be forced to kowtow to the "points only" crowd just because they get fed up with going down to the store every week with their fluffy and thematic and interesting army, only to find that nobody wants to play them because it's not using points, as if it can't be built well simply because it wasn't built with points, even if they could look at the list and see nothing min-maxed. Several weeks of wasted time and effort with nothing to show for it will, in my experience, quickly get someone to throw up their hands in frustration and "give in", all the while having a miserable time of it because they can't play in the way they prefer simply because they have no like-minded, or even open-minded in some cases, people willing to expand their viewpoints rather than expect everyone else to conform.
My experience with Warmachine, a very tournament-orientated game, is that while some people are definitely in the tournament-only mindset, most people just play at that level because that is what they expect from the game. If you give them another option, a lot of times, they'll happily try it - especially if it is their second or third game of the day.
That is far too often what happens. An exact quote from someone at my local GW during a casual talk of AOS: "I'd never play without points". No reasoning why, just absolute law that the game is unplayable without points, even though all it would take is a very simple discussion of what to bring and the general expectation to not be a douchebag and try to game the system. Yet it seems many players are incapable of that and are so afraid that playing without points means spamming the best units or taking all monsters or all heroes or something equally far-fetched.
It does end up resembling a religion. There's just this faith in points which isn't maybe earned so much as freely given, and the lack of faith in every other possible way to play the game makes people shaken and uncomfortable. It's a security blanket, I guess. Something to fall back on when their opponent turns out to be a WAAC That Guy - who is the boogieman of all gamers. He may be a jerk, looking for every opportunity to exploit and demean you, but at least he is operating within the boundaries of points. At least that.
I find that rigidly adhering to points tends to limit the narrative aspects of the game; I fondly recall in 5th edition Fantasy when I started (the edition that had Bretonnians and Lizardmen in the box) there were a couple of scenarios that were uneven points, intended to be part of campaign games, such as Last Stand where the defender had half as many points as the attacker. People today would seemingly balk at that sort of game, because oh my god it's uneven points, how on earth can it be balanced?
There are several scenarios that GW has put out that have been similar in AoS, and it is kind of sad to think that points-only players will never bother to play any of those scenarios. There's so much to the game without points (not just Grombrindal) that they miss so much of what the game has to offer. Their opinions of the game is colored by their own narrow tunnel vision.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 15:51:16
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity
|
WayneTheGame wrote:What I notice more, and this goes far beyond just wargaming, society as a whole seems to want more groupthink and "conform to the herd". If one person disagrees with something, and everyone else agrees, the one who disagrees is often forced or otherwise persuaded to change viewpoints to match the others. This can be something as relevant as a narrative gamer having to forgo narrative play and min-max and netlist in order to even get a game, or go deeper to someone at a job being forced to do things in an ineffective way because everyone else does it that way, and they only see someone who is voicing dissent, not someone with equally valid ideas.
I think that specific topic can very quickly devolve into a psychological discussion, but on the wargame front I definitely see the mentality that if you don't play the way everyone else wants, you either change your viewpoint, or you don't get games. Someone who built an army that didn't rely on points but is equally or more thematic than one built with the General's Handbook can be forced to kowtow to the "points only" crowd just because they get fed up with going down to the store every week with their fluffy and thematic and interesting army, only to find that nobody wants to play them because it's not using points, as if it can't be built well simply because it wasn't built with points, even if they could look at the list and see nothing min-maxed. Several weeks of wasted time and effort with nothing to show for it will, in my experience, quickly get someone to throw up their hands in frustration and "give in", all the while having a miserable time of it because they can't play in the way they prefer simply because they have no like-minded, or even open-minded in some cases, people willing to expand their viewpoints rather than expect everyone else to conform.
That is far too often what happens. An exact quote from someone at my local GW during a casual talk of AOS: "I'd never play without points". No reasoning why, just absolute law that the game is unplayable without points, even though all it would take is a very simple discussion of what to bring and the general expectation to not be a douchebag and try to game the system. Yet it seems many players are incapable of that and are so afraid that playing without points means spamming the best units or taking all monsters or all heroes or something equally far-fetched. I find that rigidly adhering to points tends to limit the narrative aspects of the game; I fondly recall in 5th edition Fantasy when I started (the edition that had Bretonnians and Lizardmen in the box) there were a couple of scenarios that were uneven points, intended to be part of campaign games, such as Last Stand where the defender had half as many points as the attacker. People today would seemingly balk at that sort of game, because oh my god it's uneven points, how on earth can it be balanced?
I feel like you maybe don't understand the competitive mindset. If I'm playing a competitive game with list building elements, I'm going to try to make the best list I can within the confines of the system. It's really hard to scale that back.
Age of Sigmar with points allows me to make the best list I possibly can within the confines of the Matched Play rules. As a disclaimer, I don't net list. I build a list, play some games and then improve/tweak it over time. My current list is Skaven Clans Pestilens. It's been through several iterations as I learn more about the army, how it plays and tailor it to my play style. I can reasonably expect to be able to play this same list over and over as I improve it, always striving to become better at the game.
Age of Sigmar WITHOUT points makes this process ridiculously difficult. I can't really build a list and improve/tweak it over time because there is no standard army size. If I have 1000 GHB points worth of models and my opponent shows up with more for an Open Play game, I'm going to have to add units on the fly. If he shows up with less, I have to intentionally hamstring my army by removing units that break synergies I've spent time learning to use. Every game feels like a random negotiation and any sense of continuity for my army evaporates.
Narrative play can be very fun as a one off game here and there, but it completely destroys any enjoyment I derive from perfecting (in my mind) a specific army/list over time.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 16:03:52
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran
|
Kriswall wrote:
Age of Sigmar WITHOUT points makes this process ridiculously difficult. I can't really build a list and improve/tweak it over time because there is no standard army size. If I have 1000 GHB points worth of models and my opponent shows up with more for an Open Play game, I'm going to have to add units on the fly. If he shows up with less, I have to intentionally hamstring my army by removing units that break synergies I've spent time learning to use. Every game feels like a random negotiation and any sense of continuity for my army evaporates.
Narrative play can be very fun as a one off game here and there, but it completely destroys any enjoyment I derive from perfecting (in my mind) a specific army/list over time.
What you have just described there is not narrative gaming
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 16:51:02
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
Kriswall wrote:Age of Sigmar WITHOUT points makes this process ridiculously difficult. I can't really build a list and improve/tweak it over time because there is no standard army size. If I have 1000 GHB points worth of models and my opponent shows up with more for an Open Play game, I'm going to have to add units on the fly. If he shows up with less, I have to intentionally hamstring my army by removing units that break synergies I've spent time learning to use. Every game feels like a random negotiation and any sense of continuity for my army evaporates.
While I agree with this sentiment, the GHB hasn't eliminated that problem. If I show up with a competitive list and my opponent shows up with a merely average one, I need to scale things back on the fly. If I show up with an average list and my opponent brings an above-average list I need to swap in some more powerful options or be crushed. Going back to your example, we have the added problem that someone could put down a list that Clan Pestilens simply can't deal with, even if you had all the pestilens models in the world to choose from. Now the GHB is certainly a vast improvement over nothing, but its only reduced the problem rather than truly addressing it.
Which is fine, until communities treat things like the problem isn't there anymore.
|
Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page
I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 17:25:01
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity
|
NinthMusketeer wrote: Kriswall wrote:Age of Sigmar WITHOUT points makes this process ridiculously difficult. I can't really build a list and improve/tweak it over time because there is no standard army size. If I have 1000 GHB points worth of models and my opponent shows up with more for an Open Play game, I'm going to have to add units on the fly. If he shows up with less, I have to intentionally hamstring my army by removing units that break synergies I've spent time learning to use. Every game feels like a random negotiation and any sense of continuity for my army evaporates.
While I agree with this sentiment, the GHB hasn't eliminated that problem. If I show up with a competitive list and my opponent shows up with a merely average one, I need to scale things back on the fly. If I show up with an average list and my opponent brings an above-average list I need to swap in some more powerful options or be crushed. Going back to your example, we have the added problem that someone could put down a list that Clan Pestilens simply can't deal with, even if you had all the pestilens models in the world to choose from. Now the GHB is certainly a vast improvement over nothing, but its only reduced the problem rather than truly addressing it.
Which is fine, until communities treat things like the problem isn't there anymore.
What, in your opinion, would a 1000 GHB point list look like that Clans Pestilens can't deal with? I'm just curious. It's easy to make statements like that, but I've yet to see a truly one sided battle using the GHB. I just want to make sure you're being serious and not hyperbolic. Keep in mind that if I find the GHB too limiting, I can just add in models from any of the Chaos factions. The GHB may have a kajillion sub-factions, but there are really only four armies... Chaos, Death, Destruction and Order. Automatically Appended Next Post: MongooseMatt wrote: Kriswall wrote:
Age of Sigmar WITHOUT points makes this process ridiculously difficult. I can't really build a list and improve/tweak it over time because there is no standard army size. If I have 1000 GHB points worth of models and my opponent shows up with more for an Open Play game, I'm going to have to add units on the fly. If he shows up with less, I have to intentionally hamstring my army by removing units that break synergies I've spent time learning to use. Every game feels like a random negotiation and any sense of continuity for my army evaporates.
Narrative play can be very fun as a one off game here and there, but it completely destroys any enjoyment I derive from perfecting (in my mind) a specific army/list over time.
What you have just described there is not narrative gaming 
Define narrative gaming. Are you using talking about the GHB's Narrative Play option? I'm not. Narrative gaming doesn't require an ongoing campaign. It can be a single mission.
I'm talking about story based missions where the mission drives army selection and not some inherent balancing mechanism. Narrative gaming exists in lots of competitive, points based games. Most large Star Wars X-Wing expansions have included missions that purposefully unbalance the armies for the purpose of the mission narrative. Those can be fun as one offs, but rarely see play as the mission is usually frustrating for the disadvantaged side. For a lot of people, a narrative game can be a nice and fun diversion, but isn't how they want to game regularly. I imagine that's why Matched Play was released. GW had to have recognized that they simply missed the target with that large segment that wants mechanic based balance.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/22 17:36:05
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 17:58:50
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Clousseau
|
Narrative gaming doesn't always have to be imbalanced.
I treat narrative gaming as how forces would be composed of in the story, where the bulk of the force comes from their battleline and not be min/maxed.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 18:03:41
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity
|
auticus wrote:Narrative gaming doesn't always have to be imbalanced.
I treat narrative gaming as how forces would be composed of in the story, where the bulk of the force comes from their battleline and not be min/maxed.
So your take on narrative gaming doesn't allow for an elite force of the General's best units making a strike directly against the enemy's leadership? Because that also sounds narrative to me and contradicts your theory.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 18:14:30
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Clousseau
|
I didn't use the words never.
But certainly most battles weren't about special elite armies fighting every battle either. I'm open to some games being about elite forces, but every game being elite forces burns me out.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 18:21:57
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity
|
auticus wrote:I didn't use the words never.
But certainly most battles weren't about special elite armies fighting every battle either. I'm open to some games being about elite forces, but every game being elite forces burns me out.
To each his own. That's why I like points based play. I can build an infantry heavy army and be fine against an elite heavy army. I played in a 1000 GHB points tournament last weekend and played as Clans Pestilens with my army containing LOTS of Plague Monks... very infantry heavy. I went up against both infantry heavy and elite heavy armies. All of the games felt balanced and two of the three came down to a single roll of the dice. Two were won based on objectives and the last went too long (Nurgle v Nurgle makes for a long game) and was won based on kill ratio... we each had one unit remaining, but his was worth a little more than mine. If we'd had another turn, I'd probably have won by tabling him.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 18:42:58
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Clousseau
|
I'm very well aware that what I like is in a tiny minority. Thats why I've for the most part gotten out of AOS and 40k.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 19:38:57
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Huge Hierodule
|
One thing to consider with points and Narrative play, is that points allow you to write out a campaign without worrying what both players have in their collections. Instead, it allows you to write the scenarios with a view of "Forces should be this big" before running the campaignscenarios past your group.
|
Q: What do you call a Dinosaur Handpuppet?
A: A Maniraptor |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 20:06:31
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
Sweden
|
Crazy_Carnifex wrote:One thing to consider with points and Narrative play, is that points allow you to write out a campaign without worrying what both players have in their collections. Instead, it allows you to write the scenarios with a view of "Forces should be this big" before running the campaignscenarios past your group.
This was an early problem I had with the Relentless Assault battleplan in the Khorne Bloodbound battletome when it came out. How do you balance the forces in this scenario? Even the guy running the FLGS, who's a very, very big fan of AoS, agreed it was a perplexing omission to not include even a basic suggestion of how big the attacking force should be compared to the defender.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 20:19:25
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
|
Crazy_Carnifex wrote:One thing to consider with points and Narrative play, is that points allow you to write out a campaign without worrying what both players have in their collections. Instead, it allows you to write the scenarios with a view of "Forces should be this big" before running the campaignscenarios past your group.
Yes, but you don't need specific points for that either. You can easily use other measures and rely on the fact that you don't assume your opponent is a WAAC TFG who will abuse loose guidelines. I mean, look at the battle report in the latest White Dwarf. They agreed on about 4-5 heroes and about 10 units each as a guideline; something like that I feel could work just as well as "points" without being unnecessarily restrictive, so long as both players aren't trying to game the system by saying oh 10 units, I'll take 10 cannons and 3 Nagash and 2 Archaeon, gg get rekt.
|
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 20:29:15
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity
|
WayneTheGame wrote: Crazy_Carnifex wrote:One thing to consider with points and Narrative play, is that points allow you to write out a campaign without worrying what both players have in their collections. Instead, it allows you to write the scenarios with a view of "Forces should be this big" before running the campaignscenarios past your group.
Yes, but you don't need specific points for that either. You can easily use other measures and rely on the fact that you don't assume your opponent is a WAAC TFG who will abuse loose guidelines. I mean, look at the battle report in the latest White Dwarf. They agreed on about 4-5 heroes and about 10 units each as a guideline; something like that I feel could work just as well as "points" without being unnecessarily restrictive, so long as both players aren't trying to game the system by saying oh 10 units, I'll take 10 cannons and 3 Nagash and 2 Archaeon, gg get rekt.
See... that's the thing. When you're relying on a local gaming store to provide the majority of your opponents, you CAN'T assume your opponent won't be a ' TFG' who looks to abuse loose guidelines. Speaking as a former store manager who managed a community of roughly 200 Fantasy and 40k players, you're really better off being as specific as possible. As an event planner, it's much better to assume you WILL have at least one ' TFG' and plan the event such that he can participate but not ruin everyone's fun.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 20:45:15
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
In regards to a list Pestilens can't deal with, off the top of my head I could throw down two Mournguls, with 10x2 zombies and a cairn Wraith to meet minimum requirements. Make one of the Mournguls that general with red fury.
|
Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page
I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 20:52:02
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
|
Kriswall wrote:WayneTheGame wrote: Crazy_Carnifex wrote:One thing to consider with points and Narrative play, is that points allow you to write out a campaign without worrying what both players have in their collections. Instead, it allows you to write the scenarios with a view of "Forces should be this big" before running the campaignscenarios past your group. Yes, but you don't need specific points for that either. You can easily use other measures and rely on the fact that you don't assume your opponent is a WAAC TFG who will abuse loose guidelines. I mean, look at the battle report in the latest White Dwarf. They agreed on about 4-5 heroes and about 10 units each as a guideline; something like that I feel could work just as well as "points" without being unnecessarily restrictive, so long as both players aren't trying to game the system by saying oh 10 units, I'll take 10 cannons and 3 Nagash and 2 Archaeon, gg get rekt. See... that's the thing. When you're relying on a local gaming store to provide the majority of your opponents, you CAN'T assume your opponent won't be a ' TFG' who looks to abuse loose guidelines. Speaking as a former store manager who managed a community of roughly 200 Fantasy and 40k players, you're really better off being as specific as possible. As an event planner, it's much better to assume you WILL have at least one ' TFG' and plan the event such that he can participate but not ruin everyone's fun. I can totally understand this. What I don't understand is the reluctance to ASK before setting up a game. Is it really that hard to say something like "Let's each take like 3-4 heroes and 5 units, within reason" and from there go to "Well, can I field an extra unit because my army concept has X, but I'll take one less hero instead" and basically make the TFGs adapt? The issue seems to be wanting to adapt around the WAAC/ TFG players instead of making them evolve or not get games to make a better atmosphere; seems like the opposite of what should happen. If people were not using points, then wouldn't you eventually know that, for example, Bob plays to crush other people's armies and as a result Bob won't get games until he stops being a WAAC TFG? It's almost like everyone avoiding the bully and thereby letting him keep bullying them instead of standing up and making the bully change or be ostracized. That's what I don't get. It seems that people are unwilling to talk why, because they aren't sure if their opponent is a TFG? If he is, then basically end the game as soon as he shows his true colors (or refuse to play him if he shows up with some bollocks list) and then tell the rest of the community about it. This is where the notion of a gaming community, as opposed to random people who go to a game store once a week or whatever hoping for a game, comes into play. You quickly find that the community will use what is essentially reverse peer pressure to push for enjoyable games, so the TFGs either comply (since they are usually the ones that risk ruining it for others) or won't be able to get games.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/22 21:48:45
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 21:58:44
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Beautiful and Deadly Keeper of Secrets
|
NinthMusketeer wrote:In regards to a list Pestilens can't deal with, off the top of my head I could throw down two Mournguls, with 10x2 zombies and a cairn Wraith to meet minimum requirements. Make one of the Mournguls that general with red fury.
They seriously do need to make the next edition heroes only for general.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/09/22 21:58:57
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
It starts to become a lot of extra effort. I can see two sides here, one is that "I already bought, assembled, and (possibly) painted my miniatures then made a list, I really don't want to add anything else to that effort" while the other is "I already bought, assembled, and painted my miniatures, so a pre-game negotiation isn't much extra". I don't think either side is right or wrong, its just different for different people. I also don't think that having a game with reasonable enough balance to have pick-up-games without prior discussion is an unreasonable expectation either. Life is already tiring enough for some people and not wanting to go through chore activities to enjoy a hobby doesn't make such people lazy. Maybe it isn't a chore for you, or maybe it just doesn't seem like a lot of effort, but understand that for some people it is and their viewpoint is as valid as yours.
[edit] Just to note, this isn't directed at anyone in particular.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/22 22:00:12
Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page
I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. |
|
 |
 |
|
|